Senate hearing re Regional airlines

[Hobit]

One simply has to go back through all of the fatal aviation accidents and look at the numbers of civ/mil trained to make a mockery of your post.

Is this statement a result of a scientific review and study of accident reports? Or is it your belief? What are the objective (not subjective) numbers? Did you take into account the environmental and operational differences of military aviation that place the aviators in a flight regime of much higher risk? Is there a way to compare flying no higher that 5-20 feet above the highest obstacle for five hours with your vision no better than 20/100 at night versus part 121, part 135, and G.A? Do you think comparing those types of operation to a take off from 27L @ PHL and flying 2.5 to MKE for a coupled ILS to a visual is accurate?

Just wondering, you seem certain of your hypothesis but do not support it with a study or your own numbers.

 

[rumorhasit]

Give congress a few months then all the foot stomping and speeches will go away and the "Regional Airlines" will be back to hiring whoever will take close to minium wages to fly 50 plus people and passengers will go on Priceline to name their own CHEAP price.

 

[PuffDriver]

Is this statement a result of a scientific review and study of accident reports? Or is it your belief? What are the objective (not subjective) numbers? Did you take into account the environmental and operational differences of military aviation that place the aviators in a flight regime of much higher risk? Is there a way to compare flying no higher that 5-20 feet above the highest obstacle for five hours with your vision no better than 20/100 at night versus part 121, part 135, and G.A? Do you think comparing those types of operation to a take off from 27L @ PHL and flying 2.5 to MKE for a coupled ILS to a visual is accurate?

Just wondering, you seem certain of your hypothesis but do not support it with a study or your own numbers.

I made not have been clear. Go back and research the NTSB site and look at the "headline grabbing accidents in civil aviation. Then look at the backgrounds of the aviators involved in them. It may surprise your ego to find out what the background of the majority of them are.

At the same time, there are pure civilian cockpits which have met the same fate. Therefore, my point stands:

Give me a well trained, HUMBLE, pilot from either sector who knows that they don't know it all, and the operation will be successful.

 

[Hobit]

I made not have been clear. Go back and research the NTSB site and look at the "headline grabbing accidents in civil aviation. Then look at the backgrounds of the aviators involved in them. It may surprise your ego to find out what the background of the majority of them are.

At the same time, there are pure civilian cockpits which have met the same fate. Therefore, my point stands:

Give me a well trained, HUMBLE, pilot from either sector who knows that they don't know it all, and the operation will be successful.

You presume too much to speak of my ego. You jack and sh!t about me.
But thanks for the clarification, you made a statement with no objective data to support it.

 

[PuffDriver]

You presume too much to speak of my ego. You jack and sh!t about me.
But thanks for the clarification, you made a statement with no objective data to support it.

It's all on the NTSB site. I'd call that objective. Do your own research. Until then, don't go away mad, just go away.

 

[Hobit]

It's all on the NTSB site. I'd call that objective. Do your own research. Until then, don't go away mad, just go away.

Why should someone else spend time trying to find info to back up a silly claim that you made? You made the statement and won't/can't back it up. You made the statement, you do the leg work. It's not my job to support your beliefs. I'm just highlighting your inability to back up a claim.

And I'm not mad, why would you think that? Calling someone out on a foolish claim does not get me riled up. My EGO is more sturdy than that, is yours?

 

[ROSWELL41]

Congress will do nothing meaninful to raise standards or to help pilots. They will hold hearings but nothing will come of it. The public will quickly forget. Remember, the public wants cheap tickets and Congress wants a happy public.

 

[imisscorplife]

ATP for an FO??? I understand the concept, but more single engine time in a piston (prob single pilot or cfi) isnt going to help much in a multi engine turbine,crew environment at 37,000 feet, flying arrivals/departures into some of the most busiest airports in the country.

 

[Andy Neill]

Busy = LAS
Busier = PHX
Busiest = LAX
Most Busiest = ATL

 

[acpilot]

So give me a proposed regulation that would fix this....

Why do you insist that regulation is the cure?

 

[brokedash]

5. Virtual basing. Or even a step better, national seniority. Rebecca Shaw should not have to fly to EWR from SEA on the red-eye to go to work. She should have hopped on her Q-400 in Horizon paint, right there in Sea-Tac. Eliminating or reducing commuting would help both company and pilots (F/A's too).

And what if more pilots live in one domicle/hub/base than there is demand? Sorry, but if you go to nationalzation your still going to have pilots commuting to base because the excercise their right to live elsewhere. I can assure you there will be domiciles out there made up of commuters.

 

[Andy Neill]

Why do you insist that regulation is the cure?

You have to go back to the top of the thread to catch what I am getting at here.

In post #1, suupah posted an ATW article about the Senate planning hearings in June. Included in that article was a quote by Senator Dorgan of ND (that's not Notre Dame) which said:

...the urgent need for Congress and the FAA to take actions to make certain the same standards exist for both commuter airlines and the major carriers.

To which I responded in polst #2
What regulatory standards exist for majors that do not exist for the regionals?

PilotGeek answered in post #3 that it wasn't a regulatory difference but that there was some difference indeed. He said that there would probably been regulatory changes coming out as a result of this.

That is where I said in post #4
So give me a proposed regulation that would fix this....
In doing so, I didn't intend to say that the fix was regulatory but it sure seemed that Senator Dorgan did. As scary as it sounds, I was trying to get inside his head to see what he was seeing. I think this is a good thing for anybody in a camp that is opposed to some position of another camp. When he said that Congress and the FAA need to address this, I'm guessing regulations are involved.

Does that clear things up?

 

[Flyby1206]

And what if more pilots live in one domicle/hub/base than there is demand? Sorry, but if you go to nationalzation your still going to have pilots commuting to base because the excercise their right to live elsewhere. I can assure you there will be domiciles out there made up of commuters.

Well maybe if they could avoid bases of pilots commuting from SEA to EWR. SEA to LAX would be a big improvement in QOL/Duty times. Lots of fractional carriers require you live withing X miles of your base (since they cant jumpseat) maybe something along these lines at 121 carriers limiting how far you can jumpseat to work.

 

[brokedash]

Well maybe if they could avoid bases of pilots commuting from SEA to EWR. SEA to LAX would be a big improvement in QOL/Duty times. Lots of fractional carriers require you live withing X miles of your base (since they cant jumpseat) maybe something along these lines at 121 carriers limiting how far you can jumpseat to work.

Thank you. That is a good idea on which to base the foundation of such a program if it ever was to exist. The problem you would have is that 121 guys can jumpseat, so there will be plenty of them that would argue how they have a right to live more than x miles from base and still be accomodated for there flight duty. Perhaps setting in motion a plan to have the pilot based closest to home, followed by 2nd furthest base is a good way to go. Of course actual seniority and the number of slots available based on type would still be an issue.

 

[AvroGuy]

Word. I'm not sure how military pilots ever got to be so "special" in the eyes of the majors. I've flown with good ones and bad ones. I just haven't seen anything to really differentiate them from civilian trained pilots.

Maybe they are just being rewarded for their service from patriotic members of airline managements?

You want to know why the military pilot is sought after, I will tell you. Discipline and adherence to the rules, policies, and procedures. Take your GA airline pilot who got their commercial license and pit him/her against the military pilot fresh out of SUPT. Which one can fly a more precise approach on speed/profile? That would be the Mil pilot I remember my military FE check rides and I also remember my civilian pilot check rides. The civ rides were far easier than the Mil rides.

 

[acpilot]

How about congress mandated pay, Im sure if pilots were compensated more, they could afford to buy hotel rooms, would not have to work as many hours to make a decent wage, be less stressed (stress causes fatigue), and would attract more qualified individuals.

It's not up to the governemnt...thank god.

 

[acpilot]

You have to go back to the top of the thread to catch what I am getting at here.

In post #1, suupah posted an ATW article about the Senate planning hearings in June. Included in that article was a quote by Senator Dorgan of ND (that's not Notre Dame) which said:

...the urgent need for Congress and the FAA to take actions to make certain the same standards exist for both commuter airlines and the major carriers.

To which I responded in polst #2
What regulatory standards exist for majors that do not exist for the regionals?

PilotGeek answered in post #3 that it wasn't a regulatory difference but that there was some difference indeed. He said that there would probably been regulatory changes coming out as a result of this.

That is where I said in post #4
So give me a proposed regulation that would fix this....
In doing so, I didn't intend to say that the fix was regulatory but it sure seemed that Senator Dorgan did. As scary as it sounds, I was trying to get inside his head to see what he was seeing. I think this is a good thing for anybody in a camp that is opposed to some position of another camp. When he said that Congress and the FAA need to address this, I'm guessing regulations are involved.

Does that clear things up?

I see. Thank you for being civil!

 

[Andy Neill]

It's what I do.

 

[jumppilot]

If you were to make every airline pay the second year pay rate from day one, or a flat 10k increase or something similar, I doubt it would equal .10 cents per ticket. Wouldn't surprise me if it was less than .01 cent per ticket. First year regional airline pilot pay is not the big cost in the airline industry.

I wonder how much money you would get if there was a pilot tax, like the TSA's fee, of 25 cents from each person who boarded your airplane. How many people a year to you move?

You hit the nail on the head.

Lets say you fly for a regional, a 70 seater as in Colgan's case. Now, lets assume you fly 50 passengers per leg (71% load factor) 3 times a day.

50pax * 3 legs = 150 people per day.

Now, assume you fly one 4 day a week, 52 weeks a year.

150pax per day * 4 days a week * 52 weeks a year = 31,200 people flown a year.


Now, if each person gave the pilots 5 dollar each time they boarded, you would be able to split $156,000/year between the CA and FO.

I know this is simplistic given the differing size of aircraft, type of trips flow, etc, but the point is clear: pilot pay does not bankrupt an airline.

 

[blesko]

Yeesh. Some of those postings on ABC's blog have the potential to be quotable, but man, couldn't you have sent them to one of FI's grammar Nazis first?

"I iz a pylut. Dey dont pay me reel gud. I fell sad."

QUOTE]

I need a chart case sticker that says just that. Have one that says our pilots carry less thatn 20 bucks cash, but that one would match!!!!! KUDOS